CINV continues to adversely affect patients' QoL despite antiemetic therapy even after treatment with only moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, and even in the subgroup of patients who do not experience nausea and vomiting during the first 24 hours. On the basis of the FLIE results in this study, nausea had a stronger negative impact on patients' daily lives than vomiting.

Drug regulatory agencies should ensure that the benefits of drugs outweigh their risks, but licensed medicines sometimes do not perform as expected in everyday clinical practice. Failure may relate to lower than anticipated efficacy or a higher than anticipated incidence or severity of adverse effects. Here we show that the problem of benefit-risk is to a considerable degree a problem of variability in drug response. We describe biological and behavioural sources of variability and how these contribute to the long-known efficacy-effectiveness gap. In this context, efficacy describes how a drug performs under conditions of clinical trials, whereas effectiveness describes how it performs under conditions of everyday clinical practice. We argue that a broad range of pre- and post-licensing technologies will need to be harnessed to bridge the efficacy-effectiveness gap. Successful approaches will not be limited to the current notion of pharmacogenomics-based personalized medicines, but will also entail the wider use of electronic health-care tools to improve drug prescribing and patient adherence.

The concept of adaptive licensing (AL) has met with considerable interest. Yet some remain skeptical about its feasibility. Others argue that the focus and name of AL should be broadened. Against this background of ongoing debate, we examine the environmental changes that will likely make adaptive pathways the preferred approach in the future. The key drivers include: growing patient demand for timely access to promising therapies, emerging science leading to fragmentation of treatment populations, rising payer influence on product accessibility, and pressure on pharma/investors to ensure sustainability of drug development. We also discuss a number of environmental changes that will enable an adaptive paradigm. A life‐span approach to bringing innovation to patients is expected to help address the perceived access vs. evidence trade‐off, help de‐risk drug development, and lead to better outcomes for patients.

Drug regulatory agencies have traditionally assessed the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, and the current paradigm dictates that a new drug should be licensed when the benefits outweigh the risks. By contrast, third-party payers base their reimbursement decisions predominantly on the health benefits of the drug relative to existing treatment options (termed relative efficacy; RE). Over the past decade, the role of payers has become more prominent, and time-to-market no longer means time-to-licensing but time-to-reimbursement. Companies now have to satisfy the sometimes divergent needs of both regulators and payers, and to address RE during the pre-marketing stages. This article describes the current political background to the RE debate and presents the scientific and methodological challenges as they relate to RE assessment. In addition, we explain the impact of RE on drug development, and speculate on future developments and actions that are likely to be required from key players.